Have Fun, RT
 

I hate to say it, but the double-meanings here are really very well done.

S_A_M

Carlsberg
 

Even my love for free speech will not induce me to drink bad beer.

S_A_M

Have Fun, RT
 

Shhhhh. You don't know who reads these boards... Don't let them know they're being duped here.

Sebby Was Right - Keep Driving Those SUVs
 

And fat isn't bad for you either... Go figure. Must be a lotta mad left wingers out there these days. Bag the bran diet and stop construction of the windmill and solar tiled roof. I wonder what "religions" the left will come up with to make themselves feel superior next.

Its too damned bad cigarettes are definitely bad for you. I would so love to see a study proving the cancer/heart attack connection was all bunk. The reaction of the do-gooders would be so damned comical.

You know, with the gene mapping stuff going on, they're making great strides in determining who will get what diseases. there will come a day when certain people will be able to smoke and eat whatever they like with pretty good statistical comfort that they will not get a cancer or heart disease. I'm very saddened I won't live to see that day.

I have a dream of one day being able to gorge on cocaine, fliet, goblets of vodka, cartons of cigarettes and ice cream every weekend in a scene reminiscent of Scarface meeting the French and Roman Aristocracies bullimic balls.

Alas, I'll never see it. I've lived in shitty times. Too late for the 60s; too early for medical science to render me immortal.

ETA: Lets not forget silicon implants, either. Their linkage to disease has been shown non-existent as well. Can Dow Corning sue to get back all of those billions it had to piss away on those frivolous suits? How bout the shareholders? Why can't they sue to recover that money? BTW, who has that money?

Have Fun, RT
 

To claim your attitude towards a bunch or born-agains burning up Arkansas for Piss-Christ would be the same as your support of these burners is silly. And their "Christianity" isn't yours, so you don't know how they would feel. Do you think Jesus approves of killing abortion doctors? they do.

dearborn isn't burning right now, so i know it's not all muslims who are violently reacting -- maybe there are similar shades of belief in Islam. It is ironic that a cartoon portraying the leader of the faith with a bomb-head results in the followers going out and bombing things.

The main point shown here is the violent shades think they can control what everyone worldwide does. how can you try and defend that?

Have Fun, RT
 

In a civilized, adult society, free speech trumps a particular religion's heightened sensitivities.

You do see what these Islamists are doing, don't you? They can't change the law to fit their religious code, so they're indirectly doing it by force and fear.

When we make apologies and make allowances for Islam's "special status" as a religion we cannot indict or poke fun at in the public sphere, we're allowing a de facto form of shariah to take hold.

We have to set a precedent that secular freedom of expression trumps religious sensitivity. Without that bedrock principle, you're always slouching otward theocracy. And I'm not being hyperbolic here in the least. Preservation of that principle is essential to a democracy.

Have Fun, RT
 

I agree with this. I do find it interesting, though, that many of the defenses of free speech and the of need to counter the childish reaction of militant Islamists seems to crowd out any consideration of judgment, and creates the implication that anyone who suggests that showing the cartoons was a poor tactical choice simply wants to cave to theocracy.

Have Fun, RT
 

Why are you even discussing whose expression is or should be more "offensive" (the Prophet cartoon is more offensive because no likenesses are allowed, and the Piss Christ is not as bad because at least we, as Christians, get to draw Jesus, with his sandles and all!!). But if you really are so concerned about the content of the offensive cartoon: given that the last 5 years has seen countless massacres committed in the name of Allah, showing a sketch of the Prophet with a bomb on his head is not exactly surprising. It could mean many things - that people are hijaking Islam and turning it into a pro-bomb religion OR that some people view Islam itself as tolerating violence.

You say, there is a "difference" between Piss Christ and the Bombhead cartoons "in the way religious views are implicated." This is really splitting hairs. Yeah, maybe Islam says portrayals of Muhammed are bad, but on the other hand, I doubt Christianity would allow pissing on a statue of Jesus or shitting on Mary. What you're trying to do is justify why these cartoons were somehow more "wrong" than Serrano's image and that Muslims are more entitled to feel the rage than Christians were over the Serrano piece. (Even though we were made to pay for the Serrano piece with our taxpayer money, and nobody charged the Muslims to create the cartoons. Imagine that!)

Have Fun, RT - or - This Will Break the Board
 

I think, in this case, the principle at the core of the dispute is a much more important consideration than the wisdom of printing the cartoon. Too often, apologists for loathesome behavior like that exhibited by the Radical Islamists in this case will retreat to the argument that "it was unwise to taunt" the Muslims.

No shit. I agree. Unless you've shit for brains, the cartoon was obviously unwise.

BUT, such an unwise move is the only way to put the underlying issue into debate. How is shrinking from printing anything potentially perceived as offensive by Muslims any different than allowing them to outright outlaw such expression? Same effect.

The pragmatic "yeh, but it was a dumb idea" argument is a cheap way to make a speaker with a bad argument sound wise (I use it a lot). But it also makes him, in this case and many others, a coward (or one of those annoying pricks who'd rather change the subject 50 times than concede even the smallest point).

There ought to be a rule that, when debating principle, argue on the merits, not the practicality of the thing. But then I'd have little to say...

ETA: I think the most frustrating thing in society today is people's refusal to concede anything, and quickness to change the subject to create confusion rather than lose a debate. That sort of shit impedes constructive resolution of everything, and understanding between people with different views. I'd rather not debate with half the people I know because there's no point if they're just going to dig in and play games if they find their position collapsing. I usually drink heavily when anyone engages me in a debate, because its the only way to avoid becoming frustrated. For the life of me, I can't understand whats so bad about admitting when you're wrong. I'm happy to do so. I view it as a concession that I've learned something. How is that a bad thing?

BTW, I'm not being inconsistent here. I will often argue practicalities as an aside, but I don't try to shift the debate to them. And I admit when I'm wrong.

Have Fun, RT
 

am i on ignore?

Have Fun, RT
 

No, just incoherent.

You've really let Harvard down.

Because I care
 

Quandary has a second 'a'.

Because I care
 

Fag.

Have Fun, RT
 

Ty says we have to stop posted Mohammed cartoons because more extreme muslims riot when we do. I asked him whether we should stop abortions because more extreme Christians kill abortion doctors.

Carlsberg
 

Your loss. There was also Tuborg and cheese danish that I picked up at the 7-11 on P Street. Afterwards I had a burrito at Burrito Bros., which is a nice post-Danish beer snack, albeit not quite Danish itself, although the Mexican press has seen fit to stand up to the extremist Islam thugs and publish the cartoons, which is a refreshing nod to free speech and a robust press in comparison with feckless cowards in the American media. As of today add the alternative weekly New York Press as another "newspaper" too chicken-shit to publish these newsworthy cartoons that Danes are now dying for.


Thomas Sowell may be presciently correct in a piece atTownhall when he notes that we may be at a point of no return.

Looking back at the history of tragic times often reveals that many -- or most -- of the people of those times were often preoccupied with things that look trivial, or even pathetic, in view of the catastrophe looming over them. Will later generations looking back at our times see a similar blindness, and even frivolousness, in the face of mortal dangers?

That is the point of no return -- and we are drifting towards it, chattering away about legalisms and politics.